The U.S. should leave south Korea
Debate Rounds (3)
1.Reduce as defined by merriam websters Dictionary -to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number- (1.http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
2. presence as defined by merriam websters dictionary- something present of a visible or concrete nature(2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
-Now that definitions are out of the way i shall start on contentions...like I said again i am a policy debater, so I would first like to offer Inherency(whats is going on right now at the moment or the status quo in other words) before i get on with contentions.
This evidence comes directly from this link (http://www.angus-reid.com...)
-There are currently 28,000 thousand troops in South Korea...the card in 2005 is a bit old so the number of troops changed the mutual ideas and feeling of the South Koreans have not been changed...nearly 54% of all South Koreans want the U.S. to leave South Korea saying that the u.s. offers no help to the peninsulas reunification but strains it..also read from this more recent 2010 article (http://www.commondreams.org...) Obama is saying he is going to keep U.S troops in south korea for the foreseeable future which means the U.S. wont be leaving any time soon.
Moving on to contentions
Contention-1 Nuclear war
A.The North Koreans are absolutely ticked that were sitting in South Korea right now like a bunch of freeloaders, North Korea has even gone far enough to state that South Korea it self is a traitor for allowing U.S. troops to aid them.
B.The U.S. right now is acting like a tripwire for North Korea any funny business and North Korea is able willing and ready (prolification) to start a full on attack on the U.S. (B..idahostatesman.com/2010/05/25/1240041/will-north-koreas-saber-rattling.html#ixzz0s0h0em1f; )
C. If Korea launches a Nuclear war the results could be extinction, North Korea runs advanced prolification (or Nuclear construction) they also hold many nuclear missiles, the after-conflict after America has stepped on the "tripwire" could be disastrous, whole metropolitan cities could disappear in days, U.S. and Korea could lead a global nuclear conflict people....look me in the eye and tell me that isn't bad.(c.http://nautilus.org...)
This is my second contention and my last (I wanna keep this shot and sweet)
Contention 2 is Sex Trafficking
D. For clarification i offer the following definition of Sex Trafficking(D.http://www.bayswan.org...)
-sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or The term `sex trafficking' means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.-
E. Sex Trafficking is dehumanizing South Korea, sex trafficking is strong around U.S. military bases which suspiciously seems to slip out of the hands of the pentagons 2004 strict policy on sex trafficking, U.S. troops are currently stationed in bases all around South Korea, they are visiting brothels, bars, and "massage parlours" and have sex with 10 year old prostitutes who were sold to them for currency, this completely demoralizes Korea and adds even more harsh conflict between U.S. and Korea, also it directly links to my first contention, the major impact of Sex Trafficking could be Nuclear War.
Thats it please, if you are some goofy person trying to be mean and accepting challenges and not responding to them, I mean for this to be a serious debate so please lets make it one, I look forward to the debate =)
I am assuming my opponent is new to policy debate, as he does not understand what inherency is. Inherency is what is in the status quo that is preventing the plan from going into effect. While you did not know the definition of inherency, you certainly did have an inherency card, so there is nothing to attack here yet.
A: My opponent states that the North Koreans are angry at South Korea for the US presence, but when you look into the evidence my opponent used to back this up, you see it is not directly because of the US. Therefore, removal of US troops will not solve this. Luckily there isn't much of a harm here. It also says in my opponents evidence that the 1.2 million NK troops have shown no signs of mobilization, showing this threat is greatly exaggerated. Also, according to the CATO institute [www.campaighnforliberty.com/article.php?view=100] the US has nuclear weapons that greatly deter NK from making a move. Removing troops from would lull NK into a sense of security, and may decide to show physical aggression toward SK.
B: This is also in the evidence that was provided, and my previous attack applies to this as well.
C: This card explains the devastating effects of nuclear war, that are very real. The problem is that my opponent can't solve this harm. What he can and is trying to do, though, is make it worse. Removing the US presence, as previously stated, will remove the deterrent effect we strongly have on North Korean violence. The US presence is an integral part of SK's and the US's safety.
D: This was simply a definition.
E: First of all, I'd like to point out this card had no source. The most important thing in policy debate is evidence. In fact, many say to winner of a policy debate is the one that can create the biggest ball of evidence and throw it at the opponent. I myself feel strong arguments are better, but nevertheless evidence is an integral part which my opponent does not provide. Without evidence, his claims are merely assertions, assertions with no ground whatsoever. I'd like to point out a logical flaw in the card itself. My opponent asserted that sex trafficking lead directly to nuclear war, and fails to realize that sex trafficking has always existed in the country and that nuclear war has not yet happened. While the mere suspicion that a few US troops are going to brothels and are involved in prostitution might possibly be true, it does not give us any reason to pull out. I would like to point out that my opponent stated that the US were directly buying prostitutes, but how is this possible when no US soldier has ever come home with one? If the US aren't buying prostitutes to keep, then this is not called sex trafficking, but merely prostitution. This in itself should show that the US presence is in fact not pushing the country to war AT ALL due to sex trafficking, but I feel it's not enough. Seeing as the US troops are involved in prostitution, it should be noted that prostitution is good for the economy. [http://www.forbes.com...] So the US presence is not only not harming the SK NK relationship, but is in fact boosting the economy.
Now that I have refuted my opponent's harms, I would like to point out that my opponent failed to include Solvency, which is the stock issue that actually solves the Harms. Also, he forgot his plan, source of funding, and agent of action. Without these parts of a case, his case simply lays out some of what he believes to be harmful to the world, and doesn't solve it. At this point, I feel I can say no more. I wish my opponent good luck.
Anger154 forfeited this round.
Anger154 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.